It’s Time for Accountability for School Employee Union Leave Activities

by Eddie | 9:53 am, February 19, 2010

If I’m in a class some day and the teacher has to take time off because she is sick or has some job to do to learn how to be a better teacher, that would be one thing. But getting paid to take time off on behalf of the union, well, that’s a different story. [...]

North Denver Candidate Search 2010: Your Don’t-Miss Weekend Event

by Ben DeGrow | 9:39 am, February 19, 2010

This event Sunday is one you don’t want to miss:

North Denver Candidate Search 2010 Forum
A forum hosted by the people, for the people.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Doors open at 2:00 p.m.
Forum starts at 2:30 p.m.
The Pinnacle Events Center
1001 West 84th Avenue
Denver, CO 80260
(Located 10 blocks west of I-25 on 84th Avenue. It is on the [...]

Tea Party Movement Still Rising One Year After Rick Santelli’s Famous Rant

by Ben DeGrow | 9:20 am, February 19, 2010

A quick retrospective on a crystallizing moment for the still-nascent Tea Party movement that looms so large over the Colorado and American political landscape today. The grassroots upswell against Washington D.C.’s big government bailout and spending sprees already had started to take shape and pick up steam, when one year ago today CNBC’s Rick Santelli [...]

Bennet only helps himself financially with Obama visit

by Rossputin | 8:25 am, February 19, 2010

Politico.com ran a piece entitled “President Obama touts Michael Bennet as an outsider” about Obama’s visit to Denver to help Senator Michael “Who?” Bennet raise money for his campaign.  The events which reportedly raised about $675,000 (though that number could be exaggerated to try to scare Andrew Romanoff) served to show two things.

Obama still has plenty of supporters, including rich supporters.  And Bennet knows that he’s going to need an enormous amount of money to have even the smallest chance of winning.

Obama said Bennet could become an “outstanding” Senator.  This means that he isn’t one now.  And while Obama is trying to show the public a way to give Bennet a pass because Bennet is a “rookie”, I see the whole series of events as Obama supporting the Senator who is one of the least likely Sentaors, especially from this part of the country, to vote against him.

Bennet’s supine legislative position is no less than pathetic.  He’s utterly willing to sell out his state and the nation, to go so far as to say he wants to pass the Democrats’ disastrous health care “reform” bill through the budget reconciliation process despite what he must know to be the public’s deep antipathy toward the legislation.

There is no doubt that money is an enormous factor in politics, and if Bennet can add in one day as much as Jane Norton (the GOP candidate leading in cash) has in her coffers, it’s a big plus for Bennet.  But Bennet is so unpopular that I think a Republican candidate can and will win spending less than half of what Bennet spends.  Indeed, if Bennet were a smart “team player”, he’d save a bunch of cash and dole it out to the campaigns of other people he supports.  That might help him in the future, depending on what he wants to do when he leaves his Senate office in January, 2011.

On the other hand, showing himself to be so close to Obama, while probably helping Bennet win the primary race against former Speaker of the (State) House Andrew Romanoff, will be a big negative among the critical unaffiliated voters in November.  It’s as if he’s raising money that he’ll need to spend just to get back to his level of disapproval before he so obviously reminded the voters that he’s a blind, deaf, and dumb vote for a president whose job approval is among the lowest we’ve seen for a president at this time in his term in office.

As far as I’m concerned, the best thing that could happen for the Republican candidate for this seat is for Bennet to keep reminding people that he’s just Obama’s water boy.

One final thought: This money raise by Bennet is likely a modest positive for Jane Norton’s campaign to the extent that she is, at this point, the Republican candidate most able to raise the money which will be needed to compete.  Even though Bennet is unpopular, a candidate who is outspent 5-to-1 or 10-to-1 could have a hard time beating him.  For Ken Buck to give himself a good chance in the caucus and assembly process, he really needs to show some much bigger numbers…and soon.

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #2

by Lu Busse | 7:30 am, February 19, 2010

This is Day 9 of a 10-part installment. 2. If Officials Will Not Defend the Constitution, Tea Partiers Will. I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I [...]

Friday Funnies: Colorado Supreme Court is NOT “super cool”

by CTBC Director | 5:56 am, February 19, 2010

Apropos of absolutely nothing – except that it features a dog (a recurring theme on our “Friday Funnies” installments) and I found it hilarious (”If only everyone saw you the way your dog does…”)
“Dude too supercool…”
Be supercool this November –  exercise YOUR right to vote “NO” on the four ‘unjust justices’ of the Mullarkey Majority (Michael Bender, [...]

Have we passed the peak of “peak oil” nonsense?

by Rossputin | 5:18 am, February 19, 2010

Once again, H/T Don Boudreaux for bringing the Exxon report to my attention.

Just a week ago, the Wall Street Journal strangely allowed a “peak oil theory” piece on its opinion pages even though “peak oil” is every bit the hoax that man-made global warming it.

“Peak oil”, like human starvation and other scare tactics based on a myth of dwindling resources are at least as much part of an attack on free markets, capitalism, and modern economies as they are environmental radicalism. But to be sure, it’s both.  Typically, the piece in the WSJ calls for more use of alternative fuels.  And while it’s nice to see someone support nuclear energy, the idea that any combination of nuclear, wind, solar, and wave energy will replace a significant part of our oil use anytime soon is laughable.  Just how are you gonna fit that fission reactor or windmill in your gas tank?

To be fair to the scientist who first developed “peak oil” theory, Marion Hubbert, he used his analysis to predict a peak in domestic United States production which did occur.  However, since then people have erroneously extrapolated this theory to say that the world is running out of oil.

As far as I can tell, there has only been one year in recent history (2008) when BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy showed lower worldwide reserves than the prior year, and that was a statistically insignificant decline caused by a large upward revision to the prior year’s reserves.

BP’s analysis for 2009 hasn’t been released yet, but if the recent spate of results from energy companies is a good indicator, we are on track for seeing the highest level in history of proven energy reserves worldwide.

Here are some samples from the last few weeks. It should be noted that the reserve increases came on top of increased production from these companies (in case you might have thought 2009 was a down-year in production which would have made increasing reserves easier.)

ExxonMobil:

• “(A)dditions to its proved reserves in 2009 totaled 2.0 billion oil-equivalent barrels, replacing 133 percent of production.”
• “We have replaced more than 100 percent of production for 16 consecutive years”
• “The corporation’s reserves additions in 2009 (were) the highest in the decade”

BP:

• “BP’s reserve replacement ratio for the year was 129 per cent – making 2009 the seventeenth consecutive year of reserve replacement of at least 100 per cent.”

Occidental Petroleum:

• “In 2009, the company had proved reserve additions from all sources of 483 million BOE, compared to production of 235 million BOE, for a production replacement ratio of 206 percent.”
• “We are pleased to have replaced 206 percent of our 2009 production largely through improved recovery and extensions and discoveries. Over the last three years, we replaced 160 percent of our production.”

Questar:

• “Questar E&P reported estimated proved gas and oil reserves of 2.75 Tcfe at December 31, 2009, up 24% from 2.22 Tcfe at year-end 2008.”

I admit there is a theoretical limit to the oil that humans can find and recover, but I suggest the limit is much higher than the average person believes and that we will be well on our way to replacing some measurable percentage of our oil use with other fuels far before we reach that limit.  When the world’s proven reserves rise essentially every year since the discovery of oil, it’s hard to take seriously claims that we’re just about to run out.

Land O’Lakes employees happy with consumer-directed insurance

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 19, 2010

The president and CEO of Land O’Lakes says:
Offering consumer-driven health plans to Land O’Lakes employees is helping to keep health care costs in check, while maintaining or improving care quality. For Land O’Lakes, this approach supports our commitment to employees, while at the same time ensuring that we remain highly cost efficient.
Reporting on a new [...]

Colorado Supreme Court retention elections gain coverage and commentary around the state

by CTBC Director | 11:45 pm, February 18, 2010

Following the Monday Denver Post’s front-page, above-the-fold coverage of the “tough vote” facing Colorado Supreme Court justices in the upcoming statewide elections this November, other media outlets around the state are picking up on the issue – which may become among the hottest political topics in Colorado this year.
Shamelessly mixing metaphors, Monday’s Denver Post front-page story [...]

President Obama Arrives in Denver for Bennet Benefit, Greeted by Protestors

by elpresidente | 9:20 pm, February 18, 2010

**Photos and video loaded, more after the jump!** For some reason, I get the feeling that this isn’t a Green Movement that Colorado Progressives will be willing to get behind. Ha! Was it on CSPAN with the lights turned off?

Save Our States: Electoral College warrior

by Amy Oliver | 6:49 pm, February 18, 2010

Good news!  There is a new organization Save Our States with the sole mission of promoting the Electoral College throughout the country and defending it in states where it is threatened. Save Our States is the result of a group of concerned individuals from across the United States that came together to pool knowledge and resources [...]

Anti-IRS Domestic Terrorist Suicide Attack Time for Moral Clarity

by Ben DeGrow | 6:38 pm, February 18, 2010

So today we have the sad story of a frustrated nutcase named Joseph Stack who committed suicide by flying his plane into an Austin, TX, building that houses some IRS offices — after leaving behind a rambling manifesto. Hopefully a singular outlier, and not an inspiration or the start of a trend in these trying [...]

Update: No more free rides

by Amy Oliver | 4:55 pm, February 18, 2010

Taxpayers sponsored commuting for state employees will be a thing a of past if State Representative Kent Lambert and State Senator Bill Cadman get their way.  Lambert and Cadman are the prime sponsors of HB10-1287, legislation “concerning the use of state-owned vehicles for commuting purposes.”
If passed the bill would put an end to “commuting unless [...]

The Dirty Dozen and TABOR

by Jon Caldara | 12:56 pm, February 18, 2010

Just how dirty did the debate over the “Dirty Dozen” tax bills get on the floor of the Colorado Senate? Now that the dust has cleared, State Senators Shawn Mitchell (R-Broomfield) and (”dirty” author) Rollie Heath (D-Boulder) join me to talk about the package of recently passed bills, otherwise known as the “Dirty Dozen,” [...]

I Promise (Mostly) to Cut Back on Using the “It’s For the Kids” Line

by Eddie | 11:39 am, February 18, 2010

Look, I’m not perfect. Using the “for the children” argument is something I have resorted to only on a few occasions. I’ve even had fun mocking someone for using the counter-intuitive “blame the children” argument. For a little kid like myself, that’s not a bad record.
But now I’ve got to keep on my toes. The [...]

Special Announcement from LPR

by Jon Caldara | 10:46 am, February 18, 2010

President Reagan’s words have never been truer: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness…”

We’re counting on you to lead the charge to preserve [...]

Mr. President, Welcome to Denver

by Ben DeGrow | 9:29 am, February 18, 2010

One year and one day after President Obama came to Denver to sign away hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into generational debt for the creation of some government jobs (and in the process, taking out some in the private sector), he’s coming back. This time Obama will be here to help save another job: [...]

NY Times reporter makes ridiculous claims about “compromise”

by Rossputin | 9:04 am, February 18, 2010

Typical of the NY Times, a reporter decides to editorialize, suggesting that within the current Congress, blame for not addressing our national debt should be equally shared between the two political parties. The claim is laughable, but typical of the Times.

Please see my short note for the National Review Instititute at:

http://nrinstitute.org/mediamalpractice/?p=683

Top 10 Reasons Why Both Parties Are in Tea Party Hot Water – #3

by Lu Busse | 7:30 am, February 18, 2010

This is Day 8 of a 10-part installment. 3.  Broken Words, Broken Promises and Broken Vows  You Lie! Rep. Joe Wilson’s shouting those two words resonated with the Tea Party crowds not just because of the alleged lie at the moment but because it applies to so many statements from so many politicians from both sides of the aisle for [...]

Obama Creates or Saves Census Jobs in Colorado

by wesley | 7:01 am, February 18, 2010

Attention unemployed Colorado citizens! Currently there are government Census jobs available if you can solve 3rd grade level math problems and count how many fingers you have. Yesterday, I arrived home with the following flyer wedged in my mailbox lid: Good pay and flexible hours sound pretty good in an economy with more than 10% [...]

Continuing the “climate change” debate with Yoram Bauman

by Rossputin | 5:18 am, February 18, 2010

Nearly two years ago, I had a fun online debate with “Standup Economist” Yoram Bauman about the science and economics of what was then called “global warming” and now (due to the absence of warming) called “climate change.”  Dr. Bauman and I have decided to reprise the debate in light of whatever we’ve learned in recent years.  The Taylor brothers, Jerry and James, also participated in our conversation and I hope they will contribute to round two.

First below is Dr. Bauman’s first salvo in round two, as copied from his blog at http://www.standupeconomist.com

Rather than writing one long note in response and posting it after Bauman’s note, I will intersperse my comments within his note below, my comments in maroon bold text.

About two years ago I had a back-and-forth on climate change with libertarian blogger Rossputin, the Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor, and the Heartland Institute’s James Taylor. Rossputin recently emailed me to ask: “After ClimateGate, GlacierGate, etc…. do you give even a little credence yet to my view that [anthropogenic climate change is] essentially a hoax?” So here’s an update.

In my original post I accused libertarians of promoting the “Three No’s”:

1. No recognition that climate change is a theoretical possibility. I am happy to say that we’ve made progress on this: Rossputin and the Taylor boys all acknowledge that it is at least possible that something like carbon emissions could be a problem. This is terrific.

   First, let’s make clear that when Dr. Bauman says “climate change”, he means “climate change caused by humans”, also called Anthropogenic Global Warming (“AGW”).  With that said, I acknowledge that AGW is a theoretical possibility in the same way that it is a theoretical possibility that the sum of all beach-goers who pee in the ocean might raise sea levels.  I do not believe, within the constraints of reality and reasonable possiblity, that CO2 emissions could be a problem.  First, atmospheric CO2 concentrations come AFTER, not before, planetary warming.  Second, even to the extent that CO2 could produce theoretical warming, it is a logarithmic effect, meaning that each further addition of CO2 to the atmosphere creates less warming than the prior addition of (the same amount of) CO2.
   

2. No peace with the IPCC. With the possible exception of Cato’s Jerry Taylor, we have made no progress here. Two years ago libertarian folks were writing about the “impending collapse of the global warming paradigm”, and today the “impending collapse of the global warming paradigm” is —guess what?—still impending. Libertarians used to mock environmentalists for making claims of impending collapse (that we’re running out of food, oil, minerals, etc.) that didn’t pan out; Julian Simon was a master of this, and I admire him for it. But now you’re making the same mistake yourselves, and you deserve to be mocked for it, starting with Julian Simon, who wrote “My guess is that global warming is likely to be simply another transient concern, barely worthy of consideration ten years from now.” He wrote that in 1994. Give it up already! You already agree that climate change is a theoretical possibility (see point #1 above), so it’s not that hard to go from there to accepting the scientific evidence. Speaking of the scientific evidence…

   Yoram, have you not been paying attention?  The collapse of the global warming paradigm is no longer “impending”. It’s happening daily. Which of these major news stories have you missed? And if you’ve missed all of them then maybe you should do some homework before writing such obviously erroneous statements.

   • Climategate
   • Glaciergate
   • Africagate
   • New questions about IPCC claims regarding hurricanes and cyclones
     
   • The Phil Jones interview in which one of the leading culprits of the AGW hoax makes important admissions about warming…and about himself.
   • India withdraws from the IPCC
   • Arizona withdraws from the Wetstern Climate Initiative
     
   • The news that three of the founding members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (Conoco, BP, and Caterpillar) are dropping out of the group.
   • The 31,000 scientists (including over 9,000 PhDs) who have signed a petition saying that AGW is wrong.

   I could keep going but it’s not necessary.  The number of scandals related to AGW and the UN is crushing the alarmist movement day by day.  (This PAGE has a good summary of the above and other scandals.)  Julian Simon was just a few years early, but he’s being proven absolutely right…again.  How many news reports and opinion pieces calling AGW a “scam” or “mass panic” or “hoax” do you need to see to admit at least that there are huge cracks in the foundation of the alarmist movement?

3. No negotiation about climate change science, i.e., no serious scientific engagement. Here I am sorry to say that we’ve made negative progress. My fear—see my questions below—is that ClimateGate and GlacierGate &etc have eliminated the possibility of reaching agreement simply because we can no longer agree on a data set that will tell us, e.g., about global temperatures. I see ClimateGate mostly as an administrative issue—people who ask others to delete emails to avoid FOIA requests should not be in positions of authority—but I cannot stop others from interpreting it as evidence of “a conspiracy to limit population not only in this country but across the globe.”

See above…your desire to rely on “science” which is proven to be more bogus with each passing week hardly makes your claim of “scientific engagement” credible.

Another item which I could have mentioned above is the simmering scandal about the steady reduction in the number of weather stations which are used to quantify global temperature changes.  From the 1970s to now, the number of stations has dropped from about 6,000 to below 1,500 with most of the stations being removed in rural locations and higher latitudes.  The choices of which sensors to keep and which to remove have resulted in a systematic measurement bias toward implying warming.

Furthermore, the quality of stations remaining is horrible.  Here’s an image from SurfaceStations.org.  Note that the orange part of the graph, representing 61% of weather stations, have systematic errors of over 2 degrees centigrade. Another 8% have errors of over 5 degrees!

So here are my questions, and I’m going to limit myself to one for each of my libertarian friends (but of course you’re free to opine on whatever you want):

• For Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute: To what extent (if at all) have you changed your views since you wrote the following during our last go-round two years ago?

  “I actually agree with almost all of [Yoram’s original post]… While I don’t pretend to speak for libertarians in general, I think an honest examination of the libertarian community would find that the beliefs Mr. Bauman is attacking are not as widely spread as he thinks. For instance, Prof. Pat Michaels – a senior fellow here at Cato who holds a PhD in climatology and who is widely published in the scientific literature on this matter – agrees that anthropogenic emissions are the main driver behind the warming trend of the past several decades. Moreover, he thinks the IPCC reports are fairly reasonable (albeit not perfect) summaries of the scientific literature (which maybe shouldn’t surprise – he is a member of the IPCC). He believes, however, that future warming will be at the lower end of the IPCC forecasts and that the economic costs will prove modest given the distribution of that warming.”

• For Rossputin: Is there a data set that we can agree on? Presumably not the Hadley Centre one (although my understanding is that you skeptics were for it before you were against it), but how about NASA (from their graphs page), or NOAA (from their annual State of the Climate report), or… you tell me! The hallmark of science is refutable implications, but we can’t get there unless we can agree on a data set to refute predictions. I’m on board with the IPCC, which predicts global average temperature increases of 0.2 C (0.36 F) for the next few decades. My untrained eye says that they’re doing pretty good so far, so well in fact that IMHO they’ve earned the benefit of the doubt; but if global temperatures rise by less (or more!) than they predicted then I’m going to reconsider. My question for you is whether you believe any of these graphs. If you do then let me know which one and what it tells you and what kind of changes will convince you that you’re wrong about global warming being a “hoax”. And if you don’t believe any of these graphs then then all I can do is encourage you to put a thermometer outside your house and start taking temperature readings

There is probably an atmospheric data set we could agree on, and probably not a land-based data set for the reasons described above.  Not to mention the fact that alarmist scientists who were in charge of some of the oldest land-based data now say they’ve lost it…  The fact that you are so resolutely “on board” with the IPCC when the evidence is so strong that their “science” is utter junk threatens to make you look like a cult member rather than an economist or someone interested in searching for truth.  I don’t believe anything from Hadley, NOAA, NASA, or the UN on this issue at this time.

You also make an important error of logic by assuming that if there is warming (which I doubt) that means that humans are making an important contribution to it (which I doubt even more.)  It is not the fact that climates change over time which is a hoax.  It is the claim that we are in a man-made inexorable warming trend.

Also, as far as the science goes, do you know that 95% of the “greenhouse effect” comes from water vapor, 99.999% of which is naturally-occurring?  And, quoting myself in a prior blog note, Carbon Dioxide, which represents less than 0.04% of the atmosphere accounts for less than 4% of the greenhouse effect.  Furthermore, only about 3% of all CO2 is man-made. In fact, combining all greenhouse gases, humans are only responsible for less than half of one percent of the entire greenhouse gas effect!

• For James Taylor of the Heartland Institute: What changes would you make to this draft PPT of an “introduction to climate science” lecture that I’ll be presenting to my ENVIR 100 students at UW next fall? I’ll take your suggestions seriously, and FYI here’s a smaller PDF version.

PS. Am I still invited for Thanksgiving dinner at the Taylor family compound? I might be on comedy/book tour this fall (promoting my fabulous cartoon economics book; see here for an excerpt on carbon pricing) and Thanksgiving would be fun (especially if your compound is in Hawaii, which is where my girlfriend wants to spend Tgiving this year .

PPS. Let me repeat something I said 2 years ago:

Listen up, my libertarian friends. You have a lot to contribute to the climate change discussion, in particular by emphasizing the superiority of markets and market mechanisms over the inefficient and often ineffective command-and-control policies that are beloved by lefties. But first you need to take a seat at the table instead of taking pot-shots at something that economists know is theoretically possible and that the scientific consensus says is “very likely”.

There is no such “scientific consensus”.  There is an echo chamber of a relatively small number of scientists who have self-serving motives (i.e. getting government and foundation grants) for saying that the end is nigh.  I don’t need to “take a seat” at a table of liars and cheats in order to make a legitimate argument against them.

We still need you at the table. Check out this this op-ed calling for a revenue-neutral carbon tax co-authored by Todd Myers of the free-market Washington Policy Center here in Seattle; I’d bet that you think it’s a good idea just on the grounds of national security! Imagine how much more likely this kind of revenue-neutral tax reform would be if you put your weight behind it.

If you believe that a “carbon tax” will be revenue-neutral, I have a bridge to sell you.  And why would you go out of your way to build an entire tax and regulation system to discourage the production of what is in the end simply plant food?  A carbon tax is the government’s way to try to control absolutely every physical product in the nation.  It’s an idiotic idea, a horrible solution in search of a non-existent problem.

Finally, as an economist it’s remarkable how you have never suggested a cost/benefit analysis of these sorts of proposals.  Even supporters of “cap and trade” (as passed in the House) say that it could only lower temperatures by less than a quarter of a degree in a century…less than an annual random variation.  Take a look at the correlation between carbon emissions and GDP, life expectancy, etc.  Carbon emissions can only be substantially cut by destroying economic output.  And the carbon tax is a cynical way to control the economy and redistribute income.  (Here’s a good video on the topic: http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=288)

Instead we have a GOP “purity test” (”We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap-and-trade legislation”) that demonstrates a complete failure to understand that the way market-based instruments reduce pollution is by making pollution expensive. I half-expect lefties to live in a la-la-land where we get to taste the honey without the sting of the bee (check out this video that manages to talk about cap-and-trade for 6 minutes without mentioning that the price of fossil fuels will go up) , but the right wing is supposed to understand how markets work and right now it’s lost.

Let’s get this straight, Yoram: Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution.  And, I repeat, even if you believe that CO2 could theoretically cause warming, humans don’t produce enough of it to justify any of these coercive government-based plans or subsidies to “deal with it.”

The science does not support your view, and the economics supports it even less.  It’s strange for a PhD economist to be so intentionally isolated from facts and basic lines of inquiry.  It’s a free country and you are welcome to participate in any religion, including the cult of global warming, but don’t expect to be able to get me to drink the Kool-Aid when all it will get us is a lower standard of living for ourselves and our children, and a level of government power and control based on utter junk science which will make us long for days of rationality and liberty.

Michael Bennet’s lame support for “public option” via reconciliation

by Brian Schwartz | 1:30 am, February 18, 2010

The Denver Post reports:
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet is pressing colleagues to use a procedural tool known as reconciliation to pass health-reform legislation — and to include the controversial public-insurance option in the bill. …
“Much of the public identifies a public option as the key component of health care reform — and as the [...]

The Mount Vernon Statement about Constitutional conservatism for 21st Century

by Donald E. L. Johnson | 12:45 am, February 18, 2010

The Mount Vernon Statement; Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century, is getting a lot of attention. Other statements are in the works or have been published. This one looks pretty good, but it needs reflection and debate.  Links:
Contract from America.

Clinton Machine Planning Tea Party Smear Jobs?

by T.L. James | 10:19 pm, February 17, 2010

BigGovernment.com is reporting that the Clintons are working with James Carville on a plan to smear and destroy the tea party movement ahead of the mid-term elections: Not only do Democrats face the possibility of losing their congressional majorities, massive losses in state house races could jeopardize redistricting next year and set back the progressive [...]

A Billion Reasons Colorado Taxpayers Should Not Trust the Colorado Supreme Court (and the rest of state government)

by CTBC Director | 5:56 pm, February 17, 2010

Recovering from all the excitement of Monday’s front-page Denver Post story profiling the “tough vote” facing four Colorado Supreme Court justices in the upcoming statewide retention elections this November and scanning the internet for other items of interest (such as this article on the Supreme Court of Colorado and these news items about judicial performance evaluations [...]

Do you believe in the Tenth Amendment? Really?

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 5:40 pm, February 17, 2010

Below the jump is a press release from Sensible Colorado.

From their website:

Sensible Colorado envisions a system where drug use becomes a health issue, not a crime issue, through innovative drug policy reform that focuses on prevention and harm reduction education, provides accessible treatment opportunities, and reduces incarcerations, crime, drug use by minors, and strains on the judicial system and police departments while increasing the resources available for healthcare and treatment.

Treating drug use like a health issue? Whoaaaa now… that’s just crazy talk.

For those “conservatives” that profess a belief in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty, do you mean it? Or do you only mean it when it is convenient?

My position is clear: Medical marijuana is a state issue, and the feds should stay the hell out of it.

All “conservatives” that support the DEA in this matter, please, never mention the Tenth Amendment again.

You don’t believe in it.

I will be at this event, waving a Tenth Amendment sign. I hope you’ll join me.

==================================

MEDIA ADVISORY — For event on Thursday, February 18

Contact: Brian Vicente, Sensible Colorado, 720-280-4067

Medical Marijuana Patients and Supporters to Rally at President Obama Event

Protesters call for end to recent “rogue” DEA raids; Release of licenced provider and recent arrestee Mark Bartkowicz

DENVER, CO — On Thursday, February 18, at an event to be attended by President Obama, medical marijuana patients and supporters will participate in a protest of the continuing federal raids of medical marijuana patients and providers in Colorado. This event is a response to the recent Drug Enforcement Administration raids of two front-range medical marijuana testing facilities and the Feb. 12 raid of a licensed medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch.

“These DEA raids are out of compliance with both the will of Colorado voters and that of the White House,” said Brian Vicente, event organizer and director of Sensible Colorado. “In particular, the recent, armed raid and arrest of licensed medical marijuana provider Mark Bartkowicz, highlights the rogue nature of the regional DEA office. “President Obama needs to be made aware of this agency’s miscreant actions.”

Colorado voters passed a medical marijuana law in 2000. In October, 2009, the Department of Justice issued a memo instructing federal agents to refrain from focusing resources on the arrest and prosecution of individuals following state medical marijuana laws. That memo is available here.

WHAT: Medical Marijuana Protest at Event Attended by President Obama

WHO: **PHOTO-OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE** with Sign-Waving Medical Marijuana Patient, Providers, and Supporters.

WHEN: Thursday, February 18 from 12-1pm

WHERE: Across from the Fillmore Auditorium, at the corner of Colfax and Clarkson in Denver, CO. See Directions HERE

# # #

Sensible Colorado is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting a more sensible, evidence-based approach to drugs and drug policy in Colorado. For more information visit http://www.SensibleColorado.org.

–
Brian Vicente, Executive Director
Sensible Colorado
P.O. Box 18768, Denver, CO 80218
Ph# 720 890 4247
Fax# 303 861 0915
brian@sensiblecolorado.org

Please visit www.sensiblecolorado.org to sign up for Sensible Colorado’s
free email updates.

–
Brian Vicente, Executive Director
Sensible Colorado
P.O. Box 18768, Denver, CO 80218
Ph# 720 890 4247
Fax# 303 861 0915
brian@sensiblecolorado.org

Please visit www.sensiblecolorado.org to sign up for Sensible Colorado’s
free email updates.

Andrew Romanoff Consultant Pat Caddell Tells Truth about Unions and Environmentalists, Gets Canned

by elpresidente | 2:56 pm, February 17, 2010

Speaking truth to union and environmentalist power and thuggery, Dem consultant Pat Caddell quickly drew the ire of lefty bloggers and was ultimately sacked by the Andrew Romanoff campaign (Romanoff is primarying the appointed Sen. Michael Bennet): While Caddell was an unpaid consultant, his firing comes roughly two weeks after the Romanoff campaign bulked up [...]

Watch KBDI Tonight: LOTR’s Amanda Teresi, Rossputin Talk Tea Party

by Ben DeGrow | 2:21 pm, February 17, 2010

Sick of the Winter Olympics? Looking for something to do? Here’s a show you should tune into tonight (and not just because two of my liberty-loving friends are on it):

Studio 12 “Tea Party Movement”
Wednesday, February 17 at 8:00 pm on Channel 12 / 12.1
Host Tamara Banks explores what’s brewing with the emerging Tea Party movement. [...]

NYT Smears Tea Partiers

by Ari Armstrong | 1:36 pm, February 17, 2010

I was initially baffled by a New York Times article on the Tea Parties, until I realized that the left, with its worship of command-and-control, literally cannot conceive of true grass-roots activism.Do nuts and conspiracy theorists ever show up at lef…

Jane Norton’s Ad Takes Aim at President Barack Obama on Eve of Visit for Sen. Michael Bennet

by elpresidente | 1:16 pm, February 17, 2010

Lynn Bartels at the Post politics blog “The Spot” has more on the ad and the inevitable progressive response.

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers